Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
If A Christian Couple Can Be Fined For Refusing To Sell Something They Believe Is Against Their Religion Then Why No Action Against This Person?
435 Answers
OK, so IMHO religion is the root of most evil but lets forget that bit because what I am trying to understand is why there seems to be one rule for one and another for a certain other religion we all have to bend ovcer backwards to accommodate?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are parallels, but the differences are more important here.
In this instance, and employee who does not normally work on a section selling alcohol was placed on a checkout where serving wine was required.
The store was at fault for not following its own policy in terms of which staff members are placed where, leading to the incident in question.
The cake shop situation was different, in that the shop and business owners acted illegally by refusing a request - that was not the case here, the store did not refuse to serve the gentleman on religious grounds, so the parallel is not accurate.
In this instance, and employee who does not normally work on a section selling alcohol was placed on a checkout where serving wine was required.
The store was at fault for not following its own policy in terms of which staff members are placed where, leading to the incident in question.
The cake shop situation was different, in that the shop and business owners acted illegally by refusing a request - that was not the case here, the store did not refuse to serve the gentleman on religious grounds, so the parallel is not accurate.
Yes, I think the fact that there was an alternative available has a part to play.
Actually another reason is that the shop has no obligation to sell any product if they don't wish to, as long as this is not associated to discrimination against the person intending to buy the product on grounds of that customer's race/ religion/ sexuality etc etc. Especially when it comes to alcohol, the store can fall back on all sorts of excuses if it didn't want to sell it to any particular person.
It's *not* double standards in that sense. No prosecution here would be possible, let alone successful.
But then I'm not sure it's a good idea to apply for a job where elements of performing that job go against your personal moral code in the first place.
Actually another reason is that the shop has no obligation to sell any product if they don't wish to, as long as this is not associated to discrimination against the person intending to buy the product on grounds of that customer's race/ religion/ sexuality etc etc. Especially when it comes to alcohol, the store can fall back on all sorts of excuses if it didn't want to sell it to any particular person.
It's *not* double standards in that sense. No prosecution here would be possible, let alone successful.
But then I'm not sure it's a good idea to apply for a job where elements of performing that job go against your personal moral code in the first place.
So it is perfectly ok for someone to have queued only to be refused at point of Sale then? Whilst I get your point on the 'business' aspect I think you are on a very fine line there. The employee is an extension of that business and refused the sale causing distress and embarrassment. Presumably the same would have happened if buying a leg of Pork. If you are not able to fulfil a job simply through your warped beliefs then you should not be employed in it. Lets face it plenty of corner shops (and indeed my local curry house) are run by Muslims and they are perfectly happy to sell it.
I see you have nothing to say apart from the usual sneering then Mickey?
I see you have nothing to say apart from the usual sneering then Mickey?
short answer: the bakers (I assume that's who you were talking about) were the whole business. Here, Tesco did sell the wine to the complainant, who of course shared his outrage with the Mail anyway. It's up to Tesco to deal with the assistant any way they want if they're unhappy with her behaviour.
ymb, I think you may be missing the point. The bakers discriminated on the grounds of the customer's orientation. The Tesco assistant didn't do this, she was discriminating against the product. The customer may have suffered "distress and embarrassment" at being served by someone else (the poor chap), but he wasn't discriminated against.
Its obvious where YMB is coming from with this post....its inviting people to have an anti-Muslim rant, rather than question Tesco's role in this issue.
As you say YMB, alcohol is freely available from 10,000's of outlets, all over the UK, 4 in my quite small village alone, and there is no problem as far as I can see.
As you say YMB, alcohol is freely available from 10,000's of outlets, all over the UK, 4 in my quite small village alone, and there is no problem as far as I can see.
A more accurate parallel would be where a checkout operator (employed to sell booze and fags on the specialist counter) was moved to a standard till and then refused to scan halal meat, because of a profound distaste for the slaughter method.
It seems an issue of staff organisation, rather than one of discrimination.
It seems an issue of staff organisation, rather than one of discrimination.
It simply should not be allowed ... if they are going to allow it then people vehemently against drinking alcohol should also be allowed to refuse to sell alcohol.
People against smoking should be allowed to refuse to sell fags, veggies should be allowed to refuse to sell meat, bah-humbugs should be allowed to refuse to sell Christmas decs .... I can't be arsed to get any dafter today (to busy) but you get the drift.
People against smoking should be allowed to refuse to sell fags, veggies should be allowed to refuse to sell meat, bah-humbugs should be allowed to refuse to sell Christmas decs .... I can't be arsed to get any dafter today (to busy) but you get the drift.
I have every sympathy for the man on his being irritated. What I'm saying is that I am fairly sure there are no grounds in law for him to bring any kind of prosecution. I've been refused a purchase of alcohol in a Tesco in the past. In fact it was even more ridiculous, as I wasn't even the one buying it. My friend (who had ID) was buying it. I didn't have any, as (at the time) I didn't drink basically at all, so why would I need to carry one around with me? Let alone the fact that I wasn't buying it. But, there you go, the cashier refused the sale, because we were both students and so, obviously, determined to get drunk and be antisocial.
No prosecution would have been possible then, either. Strictly speaking, then, the mistake the Christian couple who refused to sell the cake (or refused to allow the gay couple into their B&B) was to give their reasons.
No prosecution would have been possible then, either. Strictly speaking, then, the mistake the Christian couple who refused to sell the cake (or refused to allow the gay couple into their B&B) was to give their reasons.
Togo - //Here we go, more posting from the usual suspects proudly gloating about what is correct with no concept of what is right. //
I am translating your post - please correct me if I am inaccurate - as saying that what is 'correct' is what is legal, and what is 'right' is what is morally appropriate.
I have a firm grasp of both, so I will disassociate myself from being one of the 'usual suspects'.
This incident is not what the OP is trying to make it appear, because the parallels do not stack up.
The customer was not refused service, and he left the store with his purchase.
The situation arose because the store did not allocate its staff positions that are appropriate for their religious beliefs.
Whether or not anyone feels that religious beliefs should be a factor in this, is a separate debate entirely. Suffice it to say, the store appears to have taken on this staff member on the basis that her religious beliefs will not be compromised, and then failed to comply with that agreement, so the store is at fault here.
Personally, I think the gentleman over-reacted, and that has led to publicity, and a large amount of social media involving others who are choosing to over-react as well.
Did the store break the law - which is 'correct'? No it did not.
Did the store fail the employee and the customer by doing what is 'right'? yes it did.
I am translating your post - please correct me if I am inaccurate - as saying that what is 'correct' is what is legal, and what is 'right' is what is morally appropriate.
I have a firm grasp of both, so I will disassociate myself from being one of the 'usual suspects'.
This incident is not what the OP is trying to make it appear, because the parallels do not stack up.
The customer was not refused service, and he left the store with his purchase.
The situation arose because the store did not allocate its staff positions that are appropriate for their religious beliefs.
Whether or not anyone feels that religious beliefs should be a factor in this, is a separate debate entirely. Suffice it to say, the store appears to have taken on this staff member on the basis that her religious beliefs will not be compromised, and then failed to comply with that agreement, so the store is at fault here.
Personally, I think the gentleman over-reacted, and that has led to publicity, and a large amount of social media involving others who are choosing to over-react as well.
Did the store break the law - which is 'correct'? No it did not.
Did the store fail the employee and the customer by doing what is 'right'? yes it did.
Talbot - //It simply should not be allowed ... if they are going to allow it then people vehemently against drinking alcohol should also be allowed to refuse to sell alcohol.
People against smoking should be allowed to refuse to sell fags, veggies should be allowed to refuse to sell meat, bah-humbugs should be allowed to refuse to sell Christmas decs .... I can't be arsed to get any dafter today (to busy) but you get the drift. //
I see your point, but you cannot compare like with like here.
The store employee would obviously have made her beliefs, and the restrictions in terms of her duties, clear at the time of interview, and subsequent employment. But they are religious grounds, based on a known system of religious values and edicts.
That is not the same as wanting not to serve cigarettes because you don't like smoking - if that was discussed at the interview, the store would reasonably withhold a job offer, and the situation would not arise.
People against smoking should be allowed to refuse to sell fags, veggies should be allowed to refuse to sell meat, bah-humbugs should be allowed to refuse to sell Christmas decs .... I can't be arsed to get any dafter today (to busy) but you get the drift. //
I see your point, but you cannot compare like with like here.
The store employee would obviously have made her beliefs, and the restrictions in terms of her duties, clear at the time of interview, and subsequent employment. But they are religious grounds, based on a known system of religious values and edicts.
That is not the same as wanting not to serve cigarettes because you don't like smoking - if that was discussed at the interview, the store would reasonably withhold a job offer, and the situation would not arise.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.